Author
|
Topic: The Not So Big House
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 08 March 2004 05:49 PM
Those houses don't look so small to me, although I might be overestimating the square footage by thinking of the standard-sized rooms we're all used to. Also, she seems to be endorsing the New Urbanism, which is a movement I have mixed feelings about. In some places, New Urbanist communities have looked like yet another attempt to escape social problems rather than face them and participate in solving them. Further, New Urbanist architecture tends to be nostalgic, even a bit kitschy, as you would expect from a movement wanting to "return" to another age (mythical) of cozy safety. Where did I see, just in the last week or two, photos of some genuinely small, genuinely experimental houses -- just two rooms each? Anyone else run into those photos?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228
|
posted 10 March 2004 10:47 PM
Those houses don't look small to me either. What ever happened to the A frame or post and beam construction? Smaller homes are so much more economical as well they are easier to furnish and maintain. If they are even reasonably well designed they can be fun as well. Great for gardeners because they don't eat up huge plots of land. Urbanism is a huge issue today being that rural Canada is on a steady decline due to the Government's abandonment of income redistribution and environmental depletion in favour of corporatism. I wonder what the new houses, being constructed at mach speed today, will look like when they will need maintainace in 25 years from now? Will the suburban "Utopia" be the slums of the future when interest rates move back to more normal levels? [ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Pimji ]
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 11 March 2004 10:45 AM
I find it suspcious that the basic kind of construction-- foundation, two by four frame with drywall on the inside and whatever on the outside is the technique from Miami to Churchill and further north.Such a structure can't possibly be the most efficient in both extreems. People in Central America had difficulty adopting the idea of putting straw between the building materials (mud brick) as a means to make them more earthquake resistant. In spite of the evidence before their eyes, there was great reluctance in departing from the way things were built by previous generations. On the surface, that seems not so bright, and it is, really. But underneath it all, we cling to the conventional ways of building houses for the same reasons, in the face evidence that says we should be doing things differently.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641
|
posted 11 March 2004 12:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: But underneath it all, we cling to the conventional ways of building houses for the same reasons, in the face evidence that says we should be doing things differently.
So true everywhere in the world, not just in N.America, with the exception of several forward thinking regions.--> A lot has to do with the general lack of understanding in the advancements in the capabilites modern material and shape/heat/structure analysis which have optimised the design process. Take for example the fact that we can now calculate the exact location of the sun in the sky at any given instant; from a design perspective this means that the nort-south and east-west sides of buildings need not be symmetrical for optimum construction/aesthetic and so on. Very interesting, a thread on urbanism and urban design would be great! [ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: HalfAnHourLater ]
From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 11 March 2004 01:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: Further, New Urbanist architecture tends to be nostalgic, even a bit kitschy, as you would expect from a movement wanting to "return" to another age (mythical) of cozy safety.
Well, that's a question of taste. Personally, I like old-fashioned looking things. I like them a *lot* better than all those hypermodern looking things with chrome and either incredible spareness or glitz up to here. I want to live in, and sit on, something that looks and feels like a home or a chair, not an experiment. Now if that old-fashioned looking home is heated by geothermal and has reasonably unobtrusive solar panelling and is very well insulated, that's cool too. But I see no reason for stuff to look all space agey just because it has modern features. I also prefer old-fashioned to the horrible ubiquitous pastel look we have all over the flippin' place in Vancouver. Makes me want to retch.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 11 March 2004 02:11 PM
I like old things too. My main objection to certain aspects of the "New Urbanism" isn't that, it is more that they are reproducing "town areas" in the midst of suburbia, at prices that prevent there from being a mix of incomes and backgrounds. But they do tend to mean less sprawl, certainly less sprawl and waste than monster homes on huge plots of land. I like the little houses, but they remain single-family (or single-person) homes, hence they contribute to sprawl and make it next to impossible to build neighbourhoods where public transport, walking and cycling are the rule and private motor vehicles at most an adjunct. Thus in urban areas they don't really solve the problem - though at least they would prevent the current trend of buying huge houses, badly designed, and filling them up with junk. There are other ways of providing privacy for the different members of a household and making it practical to live - and often to work - in a smaller, better-designed space.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641
|
posted 11 March 2004 05:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cougyr:
The main reason we stick to 2x4 frame houses in North America has to much do with building codes. Try getting creative and you can run right up against a beligerant building inspector whose job is to enforce the code.
As well as the entire construction industry which has optimised and standardised the production of 2x4 houses (see the suburbs) eventhough many bureauocrats and experts have tried to pass newer/better building codes. (see the R2000 house building codes, that are having the darndest time being implemented)! The supermega housing construction industry wants to churn out the match stick houses like on a production line...brick and motar or stone is much slower to build, especially when proper insulation is considered! [ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: HalfAnHourLater ]
From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|